Filed: Mar. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRYL GLEN RILEY, a/k/a Kendu, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00101-RLW-1) Submitted: February 25, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRYL GLEN RILEY, a/k/a Kendu, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00101-RLW-1) Submitted: February 25, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYL GLEN RILEY, a/k/a Kendu,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:98-cr-00101-RLW-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Amy L. Austin,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Richard D.
Cooke, John S. Davis, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Glen Riley appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Riley’s motion for
appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Riley, No. 3:98-cr-00101-
RLW-1 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2010). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2